The Gambia Agro-Ecological
Village Development Project (GAAEV)
1.0 Project Proponents, Beneficiaries and Development
Context
1.1 Project Partners
Resource Efficient Agricultural Production
(REAP)-Canada
Box 125 Maison Glenaladale,
Ste Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 3V9
Tel. (514) 398-7743, Fax (514) 398-7972
E-mail: www.reap-canada.com
Contact person: Claudia Ho Lem / Roger
Samson
Njawara Agricultural
Training Centre (NATC).
Registered charity, Local NGO
# A40
Njawara Village, North Bank
Division,
NBD, The Gambia
Tel. 220-905-749
E-mail: Njawaranatc40@hotmail.com
Contact person: Badarra Jobe, Director Njawara
1.2 Collaborating Agencies
Village AiD – The Gambia
(VATG)
P.O. Box 6061, Farafenni,
Kaur,
Central River Division The
Gambia
T: 220-748-045; F:
220-748-239;
E: villageAiD@ganet.gm;
W: www.villageAiD.org
The Gambia National Agricultural Research
Institute (NARI)
Agric Eng. Unit (AEU)
Yundun PMB 526, Serekunda, The Gambia.
E-mail : nari@commit.gm,
Dr. Kunjo (Director of
Research) mobile: 483-112
1.3 Rationale for the Project
The Gambia is one of the most challenged nations on
the globe. In the year 2000, the Gambia ranked 160th out of 173
countries in the Human Development Index, with nearly 60% of the population
below the international poverty line and the highest population growth rate in
the world at 4.2%. According to a study of poverty in the Gambia in 1992 (Ahmed
et al, 1992), 75% of the rural population experiences a chronic food deficit
for at least 2 months of the year during the rainy season from July to August,
when income sources are also scarce.
In addition to the dire social conditions, the
environmental quality of Gambia is in a long-term trend of deterioration. The
major problems affecting the small farmers include deforestation, chronic fuelwood shortages, declining soil fertility,
soil erosion, overgrazing by goats, deteriorating groundwater
supplies, drought, lack of markets and
high cost of inputs. For both ecological
and economic purposes, there is a great need to develop more resource efficient
farming systems in the region. Fuelwood
use and the resultant deforestation is also exacting a large toll on the
resources of the country, and sustainable
rural household cooking systems must be developed to reduce the impact of this
destructive practice.
There is a compelling need to diversify farming in the Gambia. The
intensive cropping of peanuts by both small-scale and large-scale farmers has left
the national economy vulnerable to international market fluctuations and
resulted in serious food security and decline in soil quality. With an emphasis
on cash cropping, farmers have to use input-intensive farming practices in
order to sustain yields. They also lack the food crops necessary to feed
themselves and are therefore more reliant on capital in order to purchase food
for personal consumption. The country as a whole is also becoming more reliant
on food imports to feed its rapidly growing population. Diversifying farming systems in the region would increase food security
for families and offer significantly more opportunities for the incorporation and full participation of women in
all aspects of food production from planting to marketing and value added
processing.
A holistic and integrated approach is required to
respond to these interrelated challenges of environmental degradation,
diminishing natural resources, reduced
agricultural productivity, rapid population growth, hunger and high poverty
rates. New efforts are required to implement effective
sustainable rural development models to respond to these problems.
1.4 Project
Proponents
REAP-Canada is an independent, research, education and
development organization based in Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada. REAP
has 17 years experience working with farmers, scientists and the private sector
to working to create greater sustainability
in farming systems to advance rural development, both in Canada and
abroad. REAP-Canada has been working on Agro-Ecological Village development
with Philippine partners since 1997 in projects sponsored by CIDA and USAID,
and recently began a 3-year Agro-Ecological Village project in China funded by
the Shell Foundation. The organization has a leading expertise in working with
communities on sustainable farming and renewable energy systems development
through participatory on-farm research and development, and capacity building through
the support of farmer-to-farmer training networks. In 1999, REAP-Canada was
awarded by the Canadian Environmental Network, The International Environment
Award for excellence in programming under the theme of Climate Change
mitigation.
The Njawara Agricultural Training Centre (NATC) was
established in 1990, a community initiated and owned organization established
by the Njawara village for the purpose of training youth and adult farmers in
sustainable agro-forestry techniques so as to improve farm production and
profitability while promoting sustainable natural resource management. Since
it’s beginning, NATC, in collaboration with the community and several small
funding partners, has established training facilities and appropriate
agro-forestry demonstration and training grounds. The 6-hectare grounds include
training demonstrations for seedling nurseries, erosion control, soil fertility
and management, live fencing, gardening, orchard and woodlot management and
small animal husbandry. Trainings include cultural practices for vegetable
production from transplanting to marketing (pest management, pruning and other
practices that would increase yield per plot). It is registered as an NGO with
the Gambian Government NGO Affairs Agency and is a member of the independent
umbrella group The Association of NGOs (TANGO).
Njawara
Agricultural Training Centre (NATC) works to alleviate poverty this region of
the Gambia by increasing agricultural production and income in a sustainable
way through better use of land and labour resources. They also work towards
improving the balance of participation in agricultural activities to ensure a
greater degree of gender equity in farm management. The NATC, as well as an NGO
itself, is central to community life. It is host to many trainings and
community activities, including PRA’s and other facilitation seminars,
sponsored by local organizations and NGO’s, to build the capacity of local
community groups and aid in improving the lives of poor farming families.
The specific objectives of
the NATC are:
- To promote and raise
awareness of farming practices that enhance agricultural production and
income in a sustainable way;
- To provide training to
farmers, appropriate for the achievement of objective one;
- To strengthen the capacity
of relevant local organizations;
- To assist in the
development of gender equality;
·
To assist in the design &
implementation of an efficient and adapted produce marketing strategy.
Although NATC is extremely
strong in the advancement of sustainable agricultural techniques, it was found
that strenthening the organizations community development skills would increase
their ability to have impact in communities. Village Aid-The Gambia (VATG)
based in Kaur was identified to help engage in project activities with NATC to
promote the mutual goal of developing agrarian communities in the Gambia. After
mutual agreement Village AiD was approached to join the GAAEV Project
Partnership with the intention to transfer their strong community-based
development approach, and in return gain an improved understanding of
ecological agriculture and improved food security.
Village AiD (VA) began working in the Gambia in 1991.
Initially, Village AiD’s work mainly focused on supporting practical
initiatives and micro-projects with rural communities. These ranged from
repairing and or drilling new water wells, construction of access
bridges/culverts to rice fields, vegetable gardens, building community run
primary schools, providing labour and time serving devices (like grinding or
milling machines) etc. However, over time and through a continued partnership
with several rural communities especially in Lower Saloum, Village AiD has now
extended their program support to institutional and capacity skills
development, food security, literacy, micro-credit, para-legal extension and
human rights and advocacy.
The Gambia National Agricultural Research
Institute (NARI) is the Gambia’s principal agricultural research and
development institute focusing on the advancement of livestock, horticulture,
agronomy and agro-forestry systems. Presently it is also supporting the
Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR) approach for rice improvement
in The Gambia. NARI recognizes the high cost of the traditional extension
systems for agricultural research and development existing in the Gambia and is
interested in continuing to develop its experience with participatory
approaches for plant material improvement as a strategy to increase its impact
in the country.
1.5 Project Beneficiaries
The main beneficiaries of the
program will be impoverished small farmers living in the North Bank District
(NBD) and Central River District (CRD) of the Gambia. They are amongst the most
impoverished farmers in the Gambia and far from the more affluent and developed
coastal areas of the west. Household income is below the national average for
small farmers. The villages and small towns in this region typically have no
running water or electricity, few clinics, limited schools and few working
opportunities outside subsistence farming. Young people in the region often
migrate to the capital in search of improved employment opportunities.
An
important objective of the GAAEV exploratory phase was to identify which
villages the project will support. It was decided projects will be developed in
the future so that each partner will eventually work with 2-4 surrounding
communities in their region, initially limited to directly working with a total
of 150 households in each district. In the future, projects with NATC will
directly reach approximately 150 families in the Lower Badibu region, in the
communities of Njawara and Kerr Ardo, located in lowland and upland ecosystems
respectively. Other
beneficiaries include approximately 500 farmers and their family members
in three surrounding villages including Torro Ba, Torro Tayam, and Panneh Ba.
Future projects with VATG will involve four beneficiary villages selected in
the Lower Saloum District of the Central River Division including two upland
communities, Gunkuru Wollof and Ale Ancah, and two lowland communities, Jahawur
Mandinka and Tabaworo. The project will also reach all of the communities in
which VATG extends agricultural support as the technical background and
knowledge of farmer-to-farmer training methodology develops. As well,
activities coordinated with surrounding villages will provide immediate
economic benefit to the collaborating communities.
The
communities were selected through a Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) process to
determine which needed the most help, which were most eager to participate and
which would be most likely to embrace the AEV model. Major crops were also
taken into consideration with and even distribution of rice and millet farming
communities selected. Please refer to Appendix 1 for objectives and guidelines
of the RRA activities employed.
2.0 Project Goals, Objectives and Components
2.1 Project Goals and Objectives
This
exploratory phase of the GAAEV Project aimed to create partnerships between
REAP-Canada, NATC and VATG to develop project activities that increase the
understanding of ecological farming systems and rural community development
approaches that can be effectively utilized in the Gambia. The objectives of
the partnership are to improve the economic and social well being of
marginalized farming communities with a focus on women, while at the same time
protecting and enhancing the natural resource base.
The
Exploratory Phase of the Gambia Agro-Ecological Village Development Project
(GAAEV) examined opportunities to strengthen the NATCs and VATGs current
efforts in ecological farming systems and sustainable community development.
Future activities will include enhancing their training modules and
establishing trial farms and plant improvement programs using participatory approaches,
as well as aiding in farm planning and diversification. REAP has successfully
used these approaches with partners in Canada, China and the Philippines since
1997. REAP’s experience in tropical agro-ecosystems in the Philippines is also
helpful for assisting NATC and VATG develop ecological food production systems
in the surrounding rural communities. In particular, the rainy months of July
and August are the most problematic for food security and the project
proponents have a strong interest in helping develop local solutions to
resolving this problem.
Through
this exploratory phase, REAP-Canada has gained considerable understanding of
the efforts of NATC and VATG to help mitigate poverty and environmental
problems in the most impoverished regions of the Gambia. As well, a clearer
understanding of the problems in the Gambia have been gained by having REAP
staff visit several other agencies working towards effective development in the
country. In particular, REAP-Canada had two days of meetings with
Agronomy and vegetable research scientists at the National Agricultrual
Research Institutes (NARI) to discuss opportunities for plant material
improvement through participatory plant breeding and local adaptability trials
in the NBD and CRD.
The exploratory
phase also had the intention of furthering the understanding between groups by
faclitating the visit of the Executive Director of NATC, Mr. Badarra Jobe, to
Canada to observe farmer-to-farmer trainings and the research and development
efforts of REAP-Canada. Unfortunately, due to the denial of Visas to travel to
Canada, both Mr. Jobe and Mr. Kebbeh (Executive Director of VATG) were unable
to come and complete this portion of the exploratory phase. However, links with
the Canadian Embassy in Dakar, Senegal, have been made and preparations have
been made for future visits.
Additionally, through the
overseas visits of two REAP-Canada staff in August of 2003, and the subsequent
placement of one Canadian overseas intern at each organization, the basis for a
solid partnership has been established. The partners have made strong
commitments both to build project activities that promote sustainable
agriculture and community development in the surrounding communities and to
learn and develop from each other. Each organization brings to the table unique
achievements and areas of specialization that will advance the others and bring
about positive advances in the international development community.
The goals and objectives of the
envisioned partnership support CIDA's fundamental development priorities
including:
·
Basic human
needs
·
Women in
development
·
The
environment
·
Capacity
building for southern communities and organizations
·
Benefits to
Canada and engagement of the Canadian public
2.2 Gender Issues
From REAP’s exploratory field mission it was evident
that women in the Gambia in particular have very difficult lives and are in
tremendous need of support programs. The advancement of ecological agriculture
is of paramount importance to improving their quality of life and restoring the
natural resource base of their environment. The transition of rural communities
into Agro-Ecological Villages has great potential to improve the quality of
life of women, men and their families.
Through the exploratory phase, meetings and interviews
were held with local men and women of all social standings including farmers to
village leaders. Efforts were made to collect information about the rural
communities in a gender-segregated manner to better understand any potential
impacts of the project on both sexes, ages and socio-economic bracket. In the
future, efforts will be made to facilitate both
male and female participation in all
decisions regarding project activities as a means to equalize the decision
making process. Through the programming of the project, both men and
women will be highly engaged in the Participatory Rural Appraisal process,
contributing data through which the project can be evaluated and strengthened
to improve the living conditions and gender equity in the communities. The project
proponents feel it is of utmost importance to encourage the
participation of both men and women in
the project to ensure they gain more
control over their family and individual well-being.
2.3 Environmental
Assessment
The environmental
risk of the intended project is limited as its main emphasis is on the
introduction of improved ecological farming practices and farmer training.
Instead, the project has the potential to benefit the local and global
environment in several important ways:
·
Decreased
soil erosion due to wind and water through the implementation of sustainable
agro-forestry techniques
and other ecological farming practices
·
Increased
soil nutrient cycling and soil quality through the practice of intercropping
·
Restoration
of local
plant
and animal biodiversity
3.0 Project Activities,
Indicators and Outputs
3.1 Exposure in the Gambia: July 30-August 18, 2003
_
Table
1: Exposure in the Gambia: July 30 – August 18, 2003
Project
Activities, Indicators and Outputs
|
|
Activities
|
Indicators/Outputs
|
|
Agro-Ecological Village
development
|
- The successful completion
of the two-day training to be held on Agro-Ecological Village
development
- The number of
participants from the outlying rural communities
|
|
Plant Materials and Farming
Systems Improvement
|
- The
involvement of the NATC staff and local farmers in a workshop on farming
systems for food security in the rainy season.
- The
establishment of data collection systems involving the potential for the
development of ecological productions systems and trial farms promoting
on-farm research for vegetables, grains, legumes, rice and sugarcane.
|
|
Farmer-to-farmer training
programs
|
- The
exposure of the NATC staff and local farmers to a variety of participatory learning approaches
for the development of a comprehensive training program for the rural
communities.
|
|
Appropriate Technology
Development
|
- The exploration of
opportunities for the development of appropriate tools for use with
sustainable agriculture practices in the Gambia including the production
of the Mayon Turbo cooker.
|
3.1.1
Agro-Ecological Village development
Activity:
REAP will work with the NATC and local farmers associations
and NGO’s to examine opportunities for the development of agro-ecological
villages. A two-day workshop will be held on Agro-Ecological Village
development involving participants from several rural communities to generate
feedback on the approach and its suitability for the local situation.
Opportunities to further empower and build capacity of farmers organizations
through participatory measures will also be examined. Through this workshop,
REAP will gain exposure to existing development approaches used in Gambia such
as the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods being used locally and community
experiences with micro credit management.
Indicators:
- The successful completion
of the two-day training to be held on Agro-Ecological Village development
·
The
number of participants from the outlying rural communities
Outcome:
A training course was successfully held on the
Agro-Ecological Village Development Model in each community. The workshop was
held on August 6th at VATG in the Central River Division and on August 12th
at NATC in the North Bank Division. There were 10 participants at VATG including
staff and local community extensionists. There were 18 participants at NATC
including NATC staff, local community workers, NATC board members and members
of the Village Development Committee (VDC). The outline of the workshop can be
found in Appendix 2. The workshop was held in a participatory manner with
participants commenting or contributing towards each approach and volunteering
alternate methods or experiences that could be used with a similar intention.
Another outcome of this activity was that the project
partners deepened their interest in exploring the potential for the
implementation of the Agro-Ecological Village Model in their communities. Both
NATC and VATG are currently working together with REAP-Canada staff to develop
local activities to support the development of ecological farming systems using
the Agro-Ecological Village Development framework. This includes the
implementation of farmer-to-farmer training networks, learning farms, and
bottom up community-supported agricultural, ecological, social and economic
development as a means to self-sufficiency and improved environmental
conditions.
|
An
Agro-Ecological Village is a community that is largely self reliant through
the creation of integrated and ecological food production and energy systems.
Central to this approach is the conviction that ecological land management
and sound community organizing forms the basis for sustainable community
development. This model encourages the use of participatory approaches and
ecological farming and energy systems through a four-step process of
institution building, training and capacity building, farm planning and field
level implementation.
The Agro-Ecological Village
supports three central development goals to mitigate poverty while enhancing
the environment:
·
To
enhance food and energy security through the introduction of ecological
farming and energy systems
·
To
reduce external expenditures on fossil fuels, synthetic pesticides,
fertilizers and imported foods
·
To promote farming systems diversification to
strengthen ecological processes on farms, provide a more continuous flow of
income, reduce risks and encourage biodiversity
The general characteristics of
an Agro-Ecological Village based on REAP-Canada’s experience in the
Philippines are outlined in Table 2. During detailed project planning,
ecological systems will also be identified in the Gambia to find similar
solutions to meeting local needs.
|
Table 2. An agro-ecological approach to rural development in the
Philippines
|
|
|
Ecological System
|
Conventional System
|
|
|
·
Emphasizes self reliance & empowerment through maximizing
on-farm resource utilization
·
Market development oriented towards import displacement
·
Minimizes human impact on local environment & biosphere
|
·
Emphasizes export markets to pay for imported goods
·
Approach leaves communities vulnerable to external forces
- Degrades natural resource base locally and increase
greenhouse gas emissions
|
|
Food Supply
|
Internal and plant based, emphasizing farm fresh production of in-
season vegetables, rice, corn, root crops, fruit, fish and eggs
|
Much food imported into community including rice (through loans),
canned and dry fish, meat, pop, noodles, crackers, etc, imported livestock
feeds
|
|
Soil preparation and on-farm hauling
|
Carabaos (water buffalo) that reproduce
|
Tractors that need maintenance and replacement, and are fueled with
diesel and gasoline
|
|
N Fertility
|
N fixation through trash farming, nitrogen fixing legumes, azolla,
mudpress, soil mineralization, carabao dung
|
Purchased urea fertilizer
|
|
Minerals
|
Minimal erosion, recycling of rice hull ash and mudpress, carabao
dung, good soil structure
|
Purchase Potassium and
|
|
Seeds
|
Community seed banking of open pollinated seeds, new seeds assessed
in trial farms, ongoing on-farm plant improvement
|
Purchased hybrid seeds, no local adaptation trials, seeds derived
from corporations, transgenic seeds being developed
|
|
Weed Control
|
Mechanical weeding devices, crop rotation, good soil fertility
management, mulch farming
|
Herbicides and tillage
|
|
Insect control
|
Biological control strategies, resistant cultivators, balanced
fertility
|
Insecticides
|
|
Disease Control
|
Resistant cultivators, diverse cultural management strategies
|
Fungicides
|
|
Irrigation
|
Modest requirement and efficient usage, provided by alternative
water supply options
|
Gasoline/diesel powered pumps
|
|
Crop drying
|
Uses solar or biomass energy
|
Fossil fuel powered crop dryers
|
|
Marketing
|
Emphasizes internal self reliance first, then import displacement
in local markets and value added processing
|
Monoculture production emphasized and sold to distant markets in
the country or exported
|
|
Household cooking
|
Rice hull cookers, efficient wood stoves, biogas, all biofuels
derived from the farm
|
LPG fuel stove, open fire cooking, kerosene as fire-starter,
fuelwood gathered off farm or purchased
|
|
Electrical power
|
Low requirement , renewable sources explored if feasible
|
High requirement and from fossil fuel based mega-projects
|
|
Housing
|
Bamboo, farm derived wood, rammed earth
|
Cement block housing
|
This
model
has been successfully implemented in the Philippines since 1997, and China
since 2002. It employs a
participatory development approach to empower
marginalized communities living in a resource degraded environments to:
- Increase household food
security through farming systems diversification and by expanding food
production in the rainy season
- Enhance community capacity
to manage their resource base in a sustainable manner
- Increase household energy
self reliance through the introduction of an advanced crop residue
burning fuel stove and other appropriate technologies
- Improve livelihood
opportunities through increased food production, farming systems
diversification and reduced use of costly inputs
- Reduce soil degradation
and enhance the long-term capacity of the land for food production
- Improve surface and ground
water quality and quantity
- Minimize the use of
synthetic pesticides
- Improve air quality in
households and reduce health risks to food producers and consumers
- Increase forest cover
through agro-forestry
- Help protect and restore
biodiversity
- Decrease greenhouse gas
emissions through reducing fossil fuel use, minimizing field burning of
crop residues, reducing the use of charcoal for household cooking and
increasing forest cover
|
3.1.2
Plant Materials and Farming Systems Improvement
Activity:
The
exploratory phase will expose the NATC staff and local farmers to ecological
farming systems development approaches used for plant improvement. A workshop
will be held to discuss opportunities for increasing food security in the rainy
season in the Gambia. The partners will examine opportunities for the
establishment of learning farms through the North Bank District that
incorporate diversified, ecological production systems for vegetables, grains
and legumes into working farms. This approach may be helpful in further
expanding the outreach provided by the NATC beyond their existing systems
established at the local NATC farm.
Indicators:
- The
involvement of the NATC staff and local farmers in a workshop on farming
systems for food security in the rainy season.
·
The establishment of data collection systems involving
the potential for the development of ecological productions systems and trial
farms promoting on-farm research for vegetables, grains, legumes, rice and
sugarcane.
Outcome:
The
exploratory phase mission exposed the NATC staff and local farmers to
ecological farming systems development approaches used for plant improvement in
other developing nations including Adaptability Trial Farms for improvement of
rice, corn, vegetables and other staple crops. During the mission, NATC was
exposed to REAP’s development work on ECO-RICE and biological nitrogen fixing
(BNF) sugar cane in the Philippines. As well, NATC staff and leading farmers
were exposed to farmer-led plant breeding initiatives existing in the
Philippines.
From
the mission, the project partners devised some possible initial steps, subject
to further investigation and validation by communities in the next stage of the
project that can be taken to improve food security and the ecological integrity
of local agriculture. These include the following:
·
Improved
varieties of millet and rice
·
Increased
production of vegetables during the rainy season
·
Restriction
of free roaming goats and establishment of productive drought tolerant
perennial grasses and legume shrubs as animal fodder.
During
the exploratory phase visit, REAP-Canada staff met with Mr. Mbaye Jabang, a
plant scientist with NARI (National Agricultural Research Institute) in the
Gambia. One of the primary focuses of NARI has been working on research
supporting sustainable agricultural development in the Gambia. NARI has been
working on the development of vegetable and crop production, particularly rainy
season vegetables such as squash, cucumber, watermelon and pumpkin. NARI has
also been working extensively with NERICA (New Rice for Africa) and
possibilities were discussed to further its development by farmer breeding and
testing. Developed as a hybrid between Africa and Asian rice, NERICA has some
of the following characteristics:
- suitable for dry uplands
(currently only lowland rice farmed in brackish areas in significant
amounts in the Gambia with very low productivity)
- can survive in the
difficult African environment (African rice trait)
- suppresses weeds, not
requiring pesticide and herbicide applications
- has higher yields that
Asian or African varieties (Asian rice trait) under dryland conditions
- less fertilizer required
that irrigated or traditional upland rice
- Delicious (Asian rice
trait)
NARI
has developed and multiplied some varieties important for food security and
improved production in the Gambia. Unfortunately, because of a lack of
resources, their outreach into rural communities using conventional extension
systems is inadequate. They are eager to cooperate with the GAAEV partners to
gain experience in extension approaches for developing the agro-ecological
potential of the communities in the remote areas of the Gambia where the
effects of poverty and food security are most severe.
During
the exploratory phase a workshop was held to discuss opportunities for
increasing food security in the rainy season in the Gambia. There were 18
participants at NATC including NATC staff, local community workers, NATC board
members and members of the Village Development Committee (VDC). The partners
were exposed to the “Food Footprint” Food Security Analysis. The Food Footprint
Analysis is a simple and effective tool that provides a relevant and clear
representation of household food consumption. The “Food Footprint” (or area
required) to grow each crop required for household consumption is determined to
give the total land area that is required to feed a household sustainably,
meaning that the same plot of land must be available for production the
following year for the same crop. The Food Footprint is extremely effective
when assessing household food security and can also be applied as a planning
tool, encouraging farmers to reduce household Food Footprints while more
efficiently managing farm land to produce higher and sustainable yields and
generate higher incomes.
A
Food Footprint analysis was performed in the Njawara community. Please refer to
Appendix 3 for the results obtained. After the exercise REAP-Canada and the
project partners and community members were very pleased at the deeper
understanding gained regarding the agricultural and food production systems in
their region of the Gambia.
Finally,
the partners were exposed to the concept of learning farms. Although a new
concept, the partners were very interested in developing the learning farm
approach, which incorporates diversified, ecological production systems for
vegetables, grains and legumes into working farms. They agreed that this
approach may be helpful in further expanding the outreach provided by NATC and
VATG beyond their existing extension systems. Please refer to Appendix 4 for a
detailed description of learning farms.
3.1.3 Farmer-to-Farmer Training
Activity:
A variety of participatory learning approaches will be
examined for possible inclusion in the existing training approaches used by
NATC and VATG. As well, technical training materials will be examined for possible
improvement. REAP has existing modules developed from its programs in China and
the Philippines that may be suitable for adaptation to the Gambia. For each
training topic, an interactive training module can be developed. The modules
describe all of the important concepts that should be conveyed to the peasant
farmers, and act as a guide for the trainers. Other training approaches that
will be discussed for inclusion in the project phase include cross-site visits,
on the job coaching during the growing season and household roundtables
Indicator:
- The exposure of the NATC
staff and local farmers to a variety
of participatory learning approaches for the development of a
comprehensive training program for the rural communities.
Outcome:
During the exploratory mission, the
project partners explored the possibility of implementing ‘farmer-to-farmer’
training systems in the Gambia, a well-proven peer education training method
utilized by farmer alliances in Canada and the Philippines and newly in China.
The project partners were enthusiastic to support farmer-to-farmer networks in
their communities and immediately realized the benefits that such a system
could bring.
Large numbers of farmers can have
access to training through this effective and low-cost education system.
Fundamental to this approach is to develop experienced farmer trainers, known
as "first liners" to lead training sessions. These individuals are
progressive farmers having a sound understanding and skills in farming,
understanding of social and ecological issues and effective organizational and
facilitation skills. Other farmers will be trained as “second-liners” to re-echo
these lessons in their local areas to disseminate the information.
Second liners play a support role, and learn and gain confidence through actual
training experience. Young farmers who have
high potential for development will also be encouraged to become trainers, and
will be exposed to various subjects and trainers. Trainer's
training sessions will be provided to upgrade trainers on a periodic basis.
Through this participatory peer education
approach, trainers are continuously being developed, and groups are kept small
as farmers are exposed to a diversity of farmer trainers and issues. This
training approach can be adopted for instructing individuals how to employ
organic farming, diversify their production, develop their farm in a holistic
manner, and every other aspect of the Agro-Ecological Village development.
A “ladderized” training
program is utilized in farmer-to-farmer development approach, which is a series
of training sessions presented in an order that gradually increase the
technical level of information available to the farmers. Initially, a
sensitization of the communities is important to deepen the level of understanding
of the social and economic situation the farmers are facing, both locally and
nationally. This portion also provides a historical analysis of their
situation, and examines key events that brought about their current situation.
The problem-solving component of the exercise is designed to energize the
farmers and encourage them into action in their communities. This is followed
up by technical trainings including an introduction to ecological farming, farm
planning, diversified farming, agro-forestry systems, plant improvement, and
advanced ecological farming techniques. Trainings also include “field trips” to
model farms employing sustainable agriculture or in the process of conversion,
and mentoring through farm visits and individualized on-the-job (OJC) coaching
by trainers. Please refer to Table 3 for a comprehensive listing of potential
training sessions that can be included in the Agro-Ecological Village
programming.
|
Table 3: Farmer to Farmer Community Development:
Potential farmer trainings, seminars and activities
|
|
Social Orientation for community leaders
|
|
PRA (Participatory Rural Assessment)
|
|
BASO (Basic Analysis of Social Orientation)
|
|
BaSEO (Basic Socio-Economic Orientation)
|
|
IEF (Introduction to Ecological Farming)
|
|
DIFS (Diversified Integrated Farming Systems)
|
|
VMGO (Vision, Mission, Goals, Objectives
Formulation)
|
|
Strategic Planning Workshop
|
|
Farm Planning and Assessment
|
|
OJC (On the job coaching/mentoring)
|
|
Organic Vegetable Production
|
|
Nursery management
|
|
Plant improvement (seed conservation, adaptability,
farmer-led breeding)
|
|
Medicinal plants
|
|
Advanced Ecological Farming Orientation
|
|
CMP (Cultural Mgmt Practices)
|
|
IKS (Indigenous knowledge Systems)
|
|
SWCM (Soil and Water Conservation and
Management)
|
|
APM (Alternative Pest Mgmt)
|
|
Soil Fertility Management Cycle
|
|
BDU (Bio-fertilizers development and Usage)
|
|
Leadership Seminar
|
|
Marketing
|
|
Trainers Training (Organizational & Technical)
(sensitizing communities)
|
The Gambian partners were enthusiastic to develop some of these trainings
in their communities. Additionally, for each training topic, an interactive
training module can be developed. The modules describe all of the important
concepts that should be conveyed to the peasant farmers, and act as a guide for
the trainers. The technical training materials were examined for possible
adaptation to the Gambia.
In the future, the project partners would like the
beneficiary communities to undergo a custom training needs analysis to
determine which training sessions are most relevant to the farmers. Ongoing
monitoring of the applicability of the training programs would be evaluated
through expectations and feedback from participants at the outset of each
seminar. Performance measurement can gauge the effectiveness of farmer
trainings by measuring the long-term application of knowledge acquired in
farmer trainings. Evaluations can then be routinely conducted through
communication of the training coordinator with farmer trainers, who will be
responsible for maintaining contact with trainees after the trainings.
3.1.4 Appropriate Technology Development
Activity:
The exploratory phase will examine existing efforts to
develop appropriate tools locally for use in sustainable farming systems
development. The tools should be sturdy and relatively simple to construct,
allowing for low-cost local production. The tools can be effective for
encouraging ecological farming systems development, and can displace tools that
are used with chemical farming or devices that require fossil fuel inputs. The
exploratory phase of the project will examine the types of tools used locally
and the potential for introduction of promising alternatives. The production of
the Mayon Turbo Stove, which has been successfully introduced in rice producing
areas of the Philippines, will also be examined as an alternative to charcoal
use.
Indicator:
- The exploration of opportunities for the
development of appropriate tools for use with sustainable agriculture
practices in the Gambia including the production of the Mayon Turbo
cooker.
Outcome:
The
project partners met extensively together with a focus on the development of
tools in the community, which can be significant labour saving devices
particularly for women. A number of hoes, including the diamond hoe and
potentially the Idaho-plow were identifies as tool that could notably reduce
labour. However, perhaps the most important technologies identified that could
aid the communities were in the form of energy provision. It was observed that many
women spend a large portion of their day, week and year searching for fuel work
REAP-Canada staff also met with Mr. Alieu Senghore,
the head of the Mechanical Engineering department of NARI (National
Agricultural Research Institute) to discuss the potential for the introduction
of sustainable cooking technologies into the Gambia. As well as some solar
technologies, Mr. Senghore showed REAP a rice hull stove that had been
introduced from other areas in Western Africa and replicated at NARI.
Unfortunately, this stove achieved limited success because the design of the
stove permits excessive oxygen during combustion, restricting its efficiency.
It is also used almost twice as much material as the MTS, resulting in a price
more than double that of the MTS. NARI representatives were very impressed at
both the efficiency, design, simplicity and low cost of the MTS. They were
eager to begin testing and demonstrations, as well as to discuss the
development of a stove production program in the future. Currently, investigations
are being performed on the combustion efficiency of the MTS using rice hull
combined with other available bio-residues such as millet husk and peanut
shells.
3.2 Exposure in Canada: October 1-19, 2003
_
Table
4: Canadian
Exposure: October 1-19, 2003
Project
Activities, Indicators and Outputs
|
|
Activities
|
Indicators/Outputs
|
|
Canadian Farming Systems
and Training Methods
|
- The
exposure of the NATC to the production
systems and organizational activities of the Ecological Farmers
Association of Ontario (EFAO), including participation in a farmers
field day and visits to individual ecological farms.
- Visit by NATC staff to on-farm corn breeding program for low input
farming
- Visit to the Ecological
Farming Library at McGill University.
|
|
Public Engagement
|
- The presentation by NATC representative at McGill
University
- Visit by NATC representative to the CIDA
offices in Ottawa.
- Exposure of NATC representative to members
of REAP’s Board of Directors
|
To promote mutual learning
and sharing, the executive director of the NATC was to visit Canada to gain an
understanding of development efforts in ecological farming, both in Canada and
internationally. Unfortunately, due to the denial of Visa’s to
travel to Canada, both Mr. Jobe of NATC and Mr. Kebbeh (Executive Director of
VATG) were unable to come and complete this portion of the exploratory phase.
However, links with the Canadian Embassy in Dakar, Senegal, have been made and
preparations have been made for future visits. While overseas during the exploratory
mission, REAP-Canada staff also made a conscious effort to relate their
experiences working with Canadian farmers organizations such as the Ecological
Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO) and their experience with ecological
farms and existing training and extension approaches used in Canada.
Additionally, through the
overseas visits of two REAP-Canada staff in August of 2003, and the subsequent
6-month placement of one Canadian overseas intern at each organization, the
basis for a solid partnership has been established. The Canadian interns
continue to build upon the partners exposure to REAP-Canada’s experience
working with farmers groups in developing countries. The partners have made
strong commitments both to build project activities that promote sustainable
agriculture and community development in the surrounding communities and to
learn and develop together. Each organization brings to the table unique
achievements and areas of specialization that will advance the others and bring
about positive advances in the international development community.
In the future, REAP-Canada will
continue to apply for travel visas for the partners to visit Canada. REAP is
part of the Canadian Environmental Network (CEN) and other associations which
often host conferences and events where public engagement opportunities exist. REAP’s office location on
the Macdonald campus of McGill University provides an ideal location to
increase awareness of the project to the university community and to introduce
students to the field of sustainable development. In the future it is hoped
that representatives from the Gambia will give a seminar at McGill University
to students and professionals who are interested in ecological farming and/or
international development. It is also anticipated they would be able to visit
the CIDA offices in Ottawa to engage in a dialog with project officers involved
in development initiatives in West Africa.
4.0.
Problems Encountered, Lessons Learned and Outcomes
The Executive Director of NATC,
Mr. Badarra Jobe was to visit Canada to gain an exposure to the ecological
farming development experience of REAP-Canada. Unfortunately,
Mr. Jobe’s travel visa to Canada was denied and he was unable to complete this
portion of the exploratory phase. Mr. Kebbeh, Executive Director of VATG, was
also subsequently denied when he applied. Project partners learned not
to expect Visa arrangements will be certain. As a result, partners were
challenged to establish a strong partnership through improved communication
when it was available and through other means such as the deployment of
Canadian interns to Gambian organizations. In the future project partners will
create alternate schemes to ensure project objectives will be completed despite
such limitations. However, links with the Canadian Embassy in
Dakar, Senegal, have been made and preparations have been made for future
visits. While overseas during the exploratory mission, REAP-Canada staff also
made a conscious effort to relate their experiences working with Canadian
farmers organizations such as the Ecological Farmers Association of
Ontario (EFAO) and their experience with ecological farms and existing training
and extension approaches used in Canada.
When REAP-Canada staff visited the offices of the
partners in the Gambia, some major problems were also observed in
communications, including an erratic power supply and irregular computer and
e-mail access. Village Aid had no electricity and the gasoline generator
providing power to the office was expensive to operate and unreliable. The
availability of computers was also limited. NATC has no direct phone line and
no e-mail at the training center. This lack of facilities increased the
difficulty in effective communication between the partners, with the REAP
interns or project staff frequently being required to spend two days of travel
to Banjul to ensure communications with Canada. In the future we expect this to
improve with the investments in solar panels for Village Aid and the upgrading
of the telecommunications at NATC.
During
the rainy season when there are frequent flash floods and downpours, road
travel can also a problem. The road network in the NBD and CRD can be rapidly
affected and quickly turn to mud, with the roads even becoming impassible. As
well public transit is limited to mainly horse drawn vehicles for travel off
the main road. Travel by REAP staff, interns or local project staff will have
to be safe and well planned in advance, with emergency procedures in place as
necessary.
Some of the main outcomes of the GAAEV Project
Exploratory Phase are as follows:
·
Development of solid partnership
founded on the common goals of reducing poverty and improving agro-ecological
conditions in rural areas, and a commitment to achieving this in participatory
methods
·
Deepened understanding for project
proponents of the needs of small farmers in this region and existing
development strategies used by NATC, VATG, NARI and other NGOs and government
agencies and opportunities to increase the impact of the programming.
·
The primary agricultural and
ecological problems affecting rural communities in the Gambia
·
Identification
of methods to develop local partnership
networks and to expand the impact of current training efforts within farming
communities.
·
Improved
understanding of how appropriate tools
may be of use in development initiates to complement sustainable agriculture
practices.
·
Multi-lateral support by all
proponents for project development using the Agro-Ecological Village
development model as a framework
·
Identification of beneficiary
communities
·
Possible opportunities identified
to introduce the Mayon Turbo Stove as means to help reduce the overuse of
charcoal in the region of West Africa through the utilization of rice hull and
other bio-residues
·
A better understanding gained by
REAP on the role that farmer-to-farmer technology transfer can play in farming
communities in the Gambia, and how to encourage the development of ecological productions systems and trial farms promoting
on-farm research for vegetables, grains, legumes, rice and sugarcane in a
productive and participatory manner that will empower local communities.
Appendix 3: Food Security
Workshop
Food Footprint
The Food Footprint Analysis is a simple and effective
tool that provides a relevant and clear representation of household food
consumption. It is a simplified adaptation of the Ecological Footprint Analysis
developed by Wackernagel and Reese and introduced in Our Ecological
Footprint: Reducing Human Impact On the Earth. The Food Footprint
quantifies the amount of land required to grow the main agricultural components
of household food requirements. Land production rations (e.g. tonnes/ha) are
defined for each crop and multiplied by annual consumption amounts (kg) to give
the land requirements for each food component. The Food Footprint for each
crop is then summed to give the total land area that is required to feed a
household or an individual sustainably, meaning that the same plot of
land must be available for production the following year for the same crop.
The Food
Footprint is therefore extremely effective when assessing household food
security. In order to secure basic dietary requirements, households must first
assess existing land usage, looking at the planted area and the associated
agriculture returns. The Food Footprint is also applied as a planning tool,
encouraging farmers to reduce household Food Footprints while more efficiently
managing farm land to produce higher and sustainable yields. When food energy
content is also considered, Food Footprints can be transformed into energy
efficiencies, encouraging farmers to seek out methods of increasing energy
returns while reducing their household Food Footprints.
Objectives:
- Improve understanding of
local food production and eating
- Identify strategies for
improving food security and quality of diet
Activities:
- Historical timeline; hunger
history
- Food security and gaps
- food preferences / what
foods they commonly eat
- What foods are they
purchasing?
- What makes a good diet?
·
food expenditures
·
healthiest foods
- Seasonal food production
calendars
- Food footprint
·
quantities of foods produced and
consumed
·
land areas required
- Strategies for food
security and quality of diet
1.
Historical timeline;
hunger history
Over
the last 40 years what has been the observed trend for:
________________________________________________
Years ago 40
30 20 10 Present
Overall food production 100% 45%
(yield/ha)
Food production per household
Land
use per household 3 ha 10ha
Population
Deforestation
Rainfall
Diet (incl animal protein)
(domestic
and wild)
Soil
fertility / OM
Fallowing
Forest cover 100%
(charcoal
– fula’s)
(forest
clearing- mandinkas) 30%
Tillage with mechanization /
Draft
animals
Bush fires
Soil erosion
Food demand
50%
Food Purchased 2%
Imports
·
50 years ago the family farm
produced 50 bundles of cous and now only 35. 50 years ago there were 25 family
members in the household, now there are only 10.
·
Now all the land has been
cultivated/arable except salty areas with about 3% non- used. In 1980 about 90%
of the land was cultivated.
·
Before many foods were produced
such as eggplant, millet, beans, oil. Now produce mainly millet and buy the
others.
·
Now improved taste. Perhaps due to
increased availability of seasonings.
·
Amount of food consumed/person is
about the same at 10kg.day,
·
A lack of trees causes most of the
problems including drought, which causes many problems including a lack of
trees.
·
Rains come from July to September.
In the olden days they used to come in June.
·
Jan-September buy rice
·
Millet harvested in September
Harvest
Grains
March July September December
Vegetables
·
Nov- March increase in vegetables
·
Least available March-Nov
·
March-Aug vegetables very small amounts available 0-50%
·
During the wet season people eat
other things, focused labor on productive crops. They eat cous, maize,
groundnut, millet, rice, cereals, cash crops. (***reduce labour so that people
have more energy to focus on gardening)
·
during the dry season there is high
heat and pests
·
during the rainy season they don’t
know how to choose the right varieties for gardens, don’t want to take the risk
rather than focus on the cash crops.
·
There is a seasonal gap in
vegetable production that is worse than 40 years ago. This is because people
would rather focus on the cash crops.
·
Women are focused on wetland rice
production during the rainy season (**dry season rice so there is increased
time during the day for vegetables *** men assisting with vegetables)
2.
Food security and gaps
What
foods do you prefer?
|
Preference
|
Crops/staple foods
|
Proteins
|
|
Really like
|
Millet
Rice
|
Meat, oil, fish
|
|
Good
|
Maize
|
|
|
Ok
(subsidize, additives)
|
Cassava
Sweet potato, squash
|
|
Notes:
- Eat cassava and maize
together
- Like to have a balanced
diet
- Eat rice during the day,
cous at night
- Children like rice more
than millet
- Now people want more meat
and oil, preferred but recognized that there are health implications.
What foods do you purchase?
- Meat is the number one
purchase (~1kg/month, 75% purchased)
- Grains:
Cous 25% purchased
Peanuts 5%
Cowpeas 90%
Rice 75%
Maize 30%
- Vegetables, purchase 60%
- Fish purchase 95%
- Meat and livestock are
kept as a status symbol. They are an indicator of wealth. People sell an
animal only when they rare sick have a visitor etc. People can be protein
starved but will still keep 5-10 goats/sheep. If you kill a goat, it’s a
feast all at once, they sell it so that they can buy it back in
intervals. Goats are also used for traditional rituals and important occasions
like naming ceremonies, weddings, etc.
What foods do you sell?
- Groundnuts, but do keep
some for seeds and home consumption as an “additive”
- Cous, small amounts in
exchange for oil, etc.
- Maize
3.
What makes a good diet?
A) Cous and Mboom (Sauce with
beans, peanuts, morenga leaves [miracle tree] because:
- Filling, makes you strong
delicious
- Proteins and carbohydrates,
some fat
- Fibre, no constipation
- Affordable
- Eat in the evening, milk
for the baby
- Body building
- Vitamins and minerals
B) Porridge with groundnut
powder, a common food that people eat which is balanced but not as healthy.
Diet Problems:
- Vitamins, minerals are lost
in the cooking process
- Lack of proteins
- Overcook foods, reduce
value
*include more fresh greens in
the diet and raw foods (could increase health risk b/c of increased exposure to
tropical parasites) -> trade off between nutrition vs. sickness. Diet
already includes fresh greens such as leaves, etc. but should include more that
are just slightly cooked.
healthy soil ® healthy food ® healthy people
Seasonal food production calendars
Food Crops
|
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
June
|
July
|
Aug
|
Sept
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
|
Peanuts
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
Millet
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
|
Maize
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Rice
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Beans
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Cassava
|
O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
Sweet Potato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
Hunger rice*
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Squash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Watermelon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
Vegetables
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okra
|
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
|
|
|
Tomatoes
|
0
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
0
|
0
|
|
Eggplant
|
0
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
|
Bitter tomato
|
0
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
|
Hot pepper
|
0
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
o
|
o
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
|
Onions
|
0
|
0
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
o
|
o
|
o
|
0
|
0
|
o
|
|
Cabbage
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
Lettuce
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
O
|
0
|
o
|
o
|
|
|
|
o
|
0
|
O = Most production (*note: some crops have not made this
categorical distinction)
0 = Some production
o = Little production
*Hunger rice is a wild grain
4.
Food footprint
How much land to grow
your food?
Some people use more area to
grow the food they eat. Other people produce the same amount of food (food
energy, protein etc.) from a smaller amount of land. This all depends on the
type of crops you are growing for foods. To make more room available for other
(cash producing?) crops, it is best to reduce the total amount of land used for
food production by strategically using efficient cropping systems and crops à Farm planning!
Ist: determine current
consumption and healthy meal plan
2nd: determine
needed amounts of land
How much food for an
average household? (*Note: there are
an average of 8 people per household)
|
Crop
|
A
Amount eaten per year (kg)
|
B
Yield (kg /ha)
|
C = A x B
Amount of land needed (ha)
|
|
Cous
|
700 (2kg/day)
|
1000
|
0.7
|
|
Rice
|
500 (1kg/day)
|
1250
|
2.5
|
|
Maize
|
200
|
1500
|
0.15
|
|
Peanuts
|
120
|
2000
|
0.05
|
|
Beans (cowpeas)
|
50
|
800-1000
|
0.07
|
|
Meat
|
50
|
?
|
?
|
|
Cassava
|
25
|
4000
|
0.01
|
|
Potatoes
|
36
|
3000
|
0.01
|
|
Other
|
50-100
|
-
|
-
|
|
Total
|
|
|
3.5
|
Potatoes Cassava
Maize
Cous
Groundnuts
Beans
Meat?
Rice
Recommendations:
- Focus on improvement of
rice production and varieties
- Focus on improvement of
millet
- vegetables, focus on wet
season
- Increase vegetables in the
wet season, decrease dependency on rice
Advantages from following recommendations:
·
Decreased rice need,
·
Reduced footprint -> less land
used
·
Savings on purchases
·
Improved diet
·
Decreased importation
5.
Key factors driving Food
Production
- Improving Good genetics
- Farm planning and
management (trainings)
- Improving Soil quality
- Good weather
Divide
farmers into two groups: one focus on grain crops, the other focus on
vegetables.
Grains
- Rice
- Cous
- Groundnut
- Maize
- Beans
- Hungry rice (findy)
- Rice:
- Growing mostly short
season varieties, some NERICA, IRRI and Rock 5
- Now multiplying with open
pollinated seeds
- Pekin –more salt tolerant
- Rock 5 – nearby the dyke,
can grow for a longer time – 4 months
- Upland rice grown usually
the pekin variety
- Were varieties that could
ratoon for 3 years, but that was about 20 years ago and now they have
lost those varieties. The water levels have lowered since then and they
are no longer able to grow. The ratooning varieties need more water and
the farmers get discouraged.
- They have also realized
they can grow rice without water in upland areas
Problems:
- Birds
- Lack of salt tolerance
- Genetics: Varieties
available:
Commonly used rice varieties
and their benefits/drawbacks
|
|
Pecking
|
IR22
|
Sesebong
|
Suntukong Muso
|
Barra Fita
|
Kebba Cessay
|
|
Salt tolerance
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Early maturing
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
|
Do well w/o chemical fertilizers
|
✔
|
✘
|
✔
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Tillering
|
✔
|
✘
|
✔
|
✘
|
✘
|
✔
|
|
Does not lodge
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
|
Ratooning
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Pest resistant
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Yield
|
✔
|
✘
|
✔
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Taste
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
✔
|
|
Drought tolerance
|
✔
|
✘
|
✔
|
✘
|
✘
|
✘
|
|
Use in field production (%)
|
5 (seed is scarce)
|
-
|
50
|
30
|
-
|
-
|
2. Vegetables
Ways to improve vegetable
production:
- Educate farmers on
vegetable production
- Sensitize farmers to
diversity
- Preservation techniques
- Soil management
- Crop rotation techniques
- Increase awareness
- Infrastructure
- Harvest unexploited plants
(weeds)
- Good roads and better
market stalls
- Increase soil fertility
- Prevent pests and disease
using appro-tech tools
- Identify wet and dry season
crops and genetic improvement for adaptability
- Change traditions and
customary beliefs towards primitive farming techniques
- Protection from stray
animals buy using live-fence
- Topology (low and high
land) agriculture
- Systematic marketing
strategies
- Farmer to farmer visits to
exchange ideas
- Introduce and help farmer
to adopt high farming techniques on vegetable production
- Organic
Research Institutions (universities) 
Govt. Extensionists CBO’s
(community based orgs)
Farmers 
